Suchergebnisse

In the early stages of my study of the political movements surrounding the advent of AIDS and HIV, my first concern was not maintaining, or even achieving, objectivity. Rather, I found myself exploring many of the same questions as other scholars who focused on the human side of the emerging pandemic. Many of us puzzled over why AIDS had been such a strong mobilizing force. An intriguing political science question was why certain subgroups of AIDS activists enjoyed such success once the larger affected communities mobilized. Many of the people at the forefront of AIDS activism seemed to have been remarkably successful both in having their policy demands met and in incorporating themselves into the decision-making bodies that would formulate future policies. These successes seemed all the more amazing when one considered that a majority of Americans associated the epidemic with groups of people they perceived as, at best, marginally parts of American society—the diseased (hemophiliacs), the unwelcome (Haitian immigrants), and, most especially, the morally suspect (gay men and injection drug users).This paradox of unprecedented success for disempowered actors has spawned a vast literature spanning a variety of disciplines. Early books on the subject, beginning with Randy Shilts's unequaled classic, And the Band Played On, focused on the manifold obstacles facing early activists and government officials attempting to deal with the impending crisis.

The study of AIDS, as a disease, a social problem, or, in my case, as a political phenomenon is necessarily difficult and invasive. Learning about AIDS requires invasion of the most private spheres of peoples' lives, involves watching people at their most vulnerable, and often requires becoming closely involved with people whose lives and circumstances are far away from the researcher's own comfort zone. As the title of this essay suggests, my research has led me to take on a variety of roles; first, in order to gather the information I sought and, later, because of the information I had gathered. Roughly speaking, these roles can be characterized with respect to the distance of the researcher from the subject matter. As a scholar, I endeavored, particularly in the early stages of my research, to hold myself apart from what I saw and to compare my findings against those of other researchers. However, as time moved on, I found myself increasingly playing two other roles, roles I have come to characterize as witness and activist. My efforts to lessen the distance between the subjects of my research and myself resulted from both practical and personal motivations. As a practical matter, like many other social scientists, I quickly discovered that I had far greater access to information—in the form of written documents, interviews, and observation opportunities—as an insider. Personally I found myself wanting to contribute what I could to help solve, or at least lessen the severity of, the problems unfolding all around me.As I have moved closer to the subjects of my research, and to the perspectives they hold, I have been forced to confront head-on a perennial dilemma of scholars: objectivity. How does one study an issue "objectively," particularly when the issue is fraught with controversy? Does taking a side render future observations invalid? Is there some magic line between researcher and subject that is not to be crossed? If so, where is it?The findings presented below represent what I have discovered about interest organizing and political activism in the context of AIDS.

Describes the experience of the author as AIDS researcher, witness to the disease on an intimate one-on-one level, and social activist working as a needle exchanger, friend to the dying, and organizer of conferences and hearings; argues that the roles of activist and scholar are complementary and guarantee that scholarship is meaningful and relevant; US.

Passage of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) Resources Emergency (CARE) Act of 1990 followed a form familiar to students of policy making in the US intergovernmental system: the provision of significant federal financing for policy initiatives located primarily at the state & local levels. The successes & failures of the act, including its 1996 reauthorization, suggest both the strengths & the limitations of that design. Examined here are the structure of the act as a vehicle for the federal government to fund AIDS service delivery at the state & local levels & the intergovernmental consequences of allocation policies associated with the act. It is concluded that perennial problems of equity & access cannot be resolved by the delegation of responsibility for significant policy or funding decisions to localities; rather, questions about the role of the federal government in overcoming intralocal & interlocal disparities remain to be addressed. 3 Tables, 23 References. Adapted from the source document.

In this article in the symposium on 25 Years at the Margins: The Global Politics of HIV/AIDS, government commitment to provide people with HIV/AIDS therapies is compared in the cases of Barbados & Brazil to argue that the involvement of civil society is vital to ensuring the success of a treatment program. Comparative analysis of the two nation's commitments to providing retroviral treatment distinguishes Barbados' difficulty in funding & locked in exorbitant prices, the stigma & lack of civil organizations as a counterforce, & the low level of coordination between treatment & prevention programs. The widely divergent experiences of universal treatment access are related to the Brazilian integration between government officials & activists from gay organizations, & the self-empowering, activist perspective throughout local, state, & national government of that country. The two cases are concluded to bring the comprehensiveness of the World Health Organizations' recommendations into question, & the author argues that an effective response must branch out from all levels of society in demands from the people, & commitment by the government. References. J. Harwell

ABSTRACTFor several decades almost all the states have addressed the goal of ensuring an adequate supply of blood and blood products through the provision of "blood shield laws." These laws shield the blood industry from strict liability in the case of viral or other contamination of blood or its components. These laws were passed with little regard for other considerations, such as safety incentives. This article traces the development of the blood industry, its influence on state and national blood policy, and the consequences of such policy for people infected with hepatitis and HIV through blood and blood products. The authors conclude that the closed nature of the policy process has had negative consequences for the creation of blood policy that should balance concerns of both supply and safety.

Intro -- Contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Part I. Building a Domestic AIDS Treatment Activist Movement -- Introduction -- 1. ACTION=LIFE: Responding to AIDS on the Home Front -- 2. Bridging the Gap: Mobilizing a Global Response -- Part II. Forging a Global AIDS Treatment Activist Network -- Introduction -- 3. Many Places, One Goal: Connecting Global Actors -- 4. Win Some, Keep Going: Sustaining Global AIDS Treatment Activism -- Conclusion -- Afterword: Realizing Our Victories -- How You Can Become Involved in the Fight against Global AIDS -- Notes -- Index.